BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G200956

DEAN E. PRINCE, EMPLOYEE

CLAIMANT

REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY/ ALCOA, INC., EMPLOYER

RESPONDENT NO. 1

INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ ESIS, INC. (TPA), INSURANCE CARRIER

RESPONDENT NO. 1

DEATH AND PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND

RESPONDENT NO. 2

OPINION FILED JULY 19, 2012 Matter submitted on the record before Administrative Law Judge Barbara Webb, at Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant was represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondents No. 1 were represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. David L. Pake, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: 1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim.

Prince - G200956

-2-

2. The claimant’s employment with respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., began on February 13, 1951. 3. The claimant’s employment with respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., and ended on October 19, 1987. 4. On February 3, 2012, the claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission asserting a date of accident of January 1, 1987, alleging “exposure to asbestos resulting in lung disease and asbestosis.” 5. On January 1, 1987 (the date of accident asserted on the Form AR-C), and on October 19, 1987 (the claimant’s actual last day of work), the insurance carrier for Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc. was Insurance Company of North America. 6. The first claim filed with regard to this alleged “exposure” or “accident” was on February 3, 2012. 7. Claimant admits that he did not work for the respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., at any time after October 19, 1987. 8. Claimant further admits that any alleged “injurious exposure” would have occurred on or before October 19, 1987. 9. The applicable statutes of limitations and notice requirements are set out in, but not necessarily limited to, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601, §11-9-602, §11-9-603, and §11-9-702. CONTENTIONS

Prince - G200956

-3-

The claimant contends that as a result of exposure to asbestos on the job, the claimant has been diagnosed with asbestosis/lung cancer. The entire claim is controverted. Respondents No. 1 contend that the claimant’s claim for any and all benefits should be barred by the statute of limitations as set forth in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9602 and §11-9-702. Specifically, the claimant’s relationship with Reynolds Metals Company/Alcoa ended on or about October 19, 1987, and he did not work for Reynolds Metals Company/Alcoa at any point beyond that date. No claim for benefits was filed for over 24 years until the claimant filed the Form AR-C here on February 3, 2012, well beyond all potential statutory deadlines.

Moreover,

respondents No. 1 contend that the claimant’s claim for benefits was not timely filed within accordance of any “date of disablement,” and respondents No. 1 have no medical records or documentation to even show that there was an exposure or disablement in connection with these claims. Respondents No. 1 further contend that the claimant cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any asbestosis is related to his employment with the respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Company/Alcoa. Respondents No. 1 further contend that there was not an employer/employee relationship in existence for the necessary time frame to prove a compensable asbestosis claim pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-602. Moreover, respondents No. 1 contend that the claimant cannot meet the overall requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-602 and thus cannot establish a compensable asbestosis

Prince - G200956

-4-

claim. Additionally, respondents No. 1 contend that the claimant cannot meet the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601 and/or §11-9-603.

Moreover,

respondents No. 1 have no information whatsoever to establish when the claimant allegedly sustained his “last injurious exposure.” Thus, respondents No. 1 contend that to the extent there was any exposure, it was not during the claimant’s employment with Reynolds Metals Company/Alcoa or during the coverage of Insurance Company of North America, respondents No. 1 herein. Alternatively, respondents No. 1 plead an offset to the extent of any group health or disability payments as well as any unemployment benefits received by the claimant, should compensability somehow be established. The Death and Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund) defers to the outcome of litigation on the issue of compensability. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The claimant’s employment with respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., began on February 13, 1951, and ended on October 19, 1987. On February 3, 2012, the claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission asserting a date of accident of January 1, 1987, alleging “exposure to asbestos resulting in lung disease and asbestosis.” Claimant did not work for the respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., at any time after October 19, 1987. Claimant admits that

Prince - G200956

-5-

any alleged “injurious exposure” would have occurred on or before October 19, 1987. ISSUES By agreement of the parties, the issue to be determined is whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The parties have reserved all other issues. DISCUSSION Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(2)(B) provides in pertinent part: However, a claim for compensation for disability on account of silicosis or asbestosis must be filed with the commission within one (1) year after the time of disablement, and the disablement must occur within three (3) years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the hazard of silicosis or asbestosis. In the instant case, the claimant has admitted that any alleged injurious exposure would have occurred on or before October 19, 1987, the date the claimant’s employment ended with respondent employer. A claim was not filed until February 3, 2012. In this case, it is clear that the claimant’s disablement did not occur within three years from the date of the last injurious exposure to the alleged hazard resulting in asbestosis. Therefore, I find that the claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Chambers v. International Paper Co., 56 Ark. App. 90, 938 S.W.2d 861 (1997). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Prince - G200956 1.

-6-

The claimant’s employment with respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., began on February 13, 1951, and ended on October 19, 1987.

2.

On February 3, 2012, the claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission asserting a date of accident of January 1, 1987, alleging “exposure to asbestos resulting in lung disease and asbestosis.”

3.

On January 1, 1987 (the date of accident asserted on the Form ARC), and on October 19, 1987 (the claimant’s actual last day of work), the insurance carrier for Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc. was Insurance Company of North America.

4.

The first claim filed with regard to this alleged “exposure” or “accident” was on February 3, 2012.

5.

Claimant admits that he did not work for the respondent employer, Reynolds Metals Corporation/Alcoa, Inc., at any time after October 19, 1987.

6.

Claimant further admits that any alleged “injurious exposure” would have occurred on or before October 19, 1987. Therefore, any claim for benefits must have been filed in accordance with the applicable statute of limitations on or before 1990.

Prince - G200956 7.

-7-

The applicable statutes of limitations and notice requirements are set out in, but not necessarily limited to, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601, §119-602, §11-9-603, and §11-9-702.

8.

The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury in that the evidence shows that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

ORDER For the reasons discussed herein, this claim must be, and hereby is, respectfully denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BARBARA WEBB Administrative Law Judge